Ex Parte Cho et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 29, 2016

12165468 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/165,468 06/30/2008 In Sung Cho 120363 7590 05/03/2016 Lattice Semiconductor/FENWICK 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 30850-25688 1952 EXAMINER CATTUNGAL, AJAY P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2467 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/03/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): ptoc@fenwick.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte IN SUNG CHO, KUMAR MARESH, PRAKASH KAMATH, JEFFREY GILBERT, and ROB FRIZZELL Appeal2014-008392 Application 12/165,468 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. EV ANS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-22. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE.2 1 The Brief identifies SiBeam, Inc., as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 28, 2014, "App. Br."), the Appeal2014-008392 Application 12/165,468 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to methods and apparatus to identify devices using a bitmap. See Abstract. Claims 1 and 12 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. A method comprising: a host processor receiving an interrupt from a transceiver via a physical interface coupling the host processor and the transceiver indicating that a remote wireless media device has been detected; accessing a memory in response to the interrupt to obtain one or more bitmaps that map each bit location in the bitmap to an index value, wherein one index value is assigned to each remote wireless media device of a wireless network in a wireless communication system; and exammmg the one or more bitmaps and determmmg at least one characteristic of the remote wireless media device and a device identifier that identifies the remote wireless media device in the wireless network based on bit position in the one or more bitmaps. Examiner's Answer (mailed May 22, 2014, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed October 1, 2013, "Final Act."), and the Specification (filed June 30, 2008, "Spec.") for their respective details. 2 Appeal2014-008392 Application 12/165,468 References and Rejections The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: Lobbert US 2005/0021725 Al Jan.27,2005 Harrison US 2005/0256970 Al Nov. 17, 2005 Smith US 2005/ 0259646 Al Nov. 24, 2005 Suga ya US 2006/0252440 Al Nov. 9, 2006 Singh US 2008/0130617 Al June 5, 2008 Sullivan US 2008/0146343 Al June 19, 2008 Wang US 2009/0154412 Al June 18, 2009 The claims stand rejected as follows: 1. Claims 1-3 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Wang and Lobbert. Final Act. 3-5. 2. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Wang, Lobbert, and Sugaya. Final Act. 5---6. 3. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Wang, Lobbert, Suga ya, and Harrison. Final Act. 6-7. 4. Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Wang, Lobbert, and Singh. Final Act. 7-8. 5. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Wang, Lobbert, and Smith. Final Act. 9. 6. Claims 12-14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Wang, Lobbert, and Sullivan. Final Act. 9-12. 3 Appeal2014-008392 Application 12/165,468 7. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Wang, Lobbert, Sullivan, and Sugaya. Final Act. 12-13. 8. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Wang, Lobbert, Sullivan, Sugaya, and Harrison. Final Act. 13-14. 9. Claims 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Wang, Lobbert, Sullivan, and Singh. Final Act. 14--16. IO.Claims 11 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Wang, Lobbert, Sullivan, and Smith. Final Act. 16-17. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-22 in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants' conclusions. We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Brief. CLAIMS 1-3 AND 7: OBVIOUSNESS OVER WANG AND LOBBERT Appellants contend neither Lobbert nor Wang teach "a host processor receiving an interrupt from a transceiver via a physical interface coupling the host processor and the transceiver," as recited in independent Claim 1. Br. 8, 10, 11. The Examiner finds an interrupt is just a message, passing information that a device has been detected. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds a message is sent to a server, to access device configuration information, upon detecting a wireless device in the network. Where the device is not detected, the second step of sending the message to the server is not performed. Thus, 4 Appeal2014-008392 Application 12/165,468 the Examiner finds the claimed limitation is met, as there is a trigger or interrupt when a wireless device is detected. Id. Appellants contend the cited art fails to teach a host ''processor receiving an interrupt from a transceiver via a physical interface." App. Br. 11. The Examiner re-iterates the finding that an "interrupt" is a message or indication to a processor to stop doing, i.e., interrupt whatever the processor formerly was processing and to start processing a new set of instructions. Ans. 2. The Examiner finds Lobbert discloses interrupt processing. Final Act. 2; Ans. 2. Appellants' argument highlights in bold and underline the claimed phrase "via a physical interface." App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4 (citing Spec., ,-r 290, Fig 76A). The Examiner does not respond to the "physical interface" aspect of Appellants' argument. See Final Act. 2; Ans. 2. Appellants disclose their wireless communication system includes an apparatus to communicate with remote wireless devices (e.g., WirelessHD devices) in the wireless network, where the apparatus comprises: a host processor having an I2C interface; a transceiver having an I2C interface; and a physical interface coupling the host processor and the transceiver that includes an I2C bus coupled to the I2C interfaces of both the host processor and the transceiver. Spec., i-f 166 (emphasis added); see also Spec., i-f 290. Appellants define the "I2C Protocol, Inter-Integrated Circuit Protocol, [as] a multi-master serial bus used to enable low-speed communications between processors or 5 Appeal2014-008392 Application 12/165,468 computers." Spec., i-f 160. Appellants further disclose the "Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) 205 is the physical driver of the interface" and "uses the standard 8-bit addressing mode described in '"The I2C-Bus Specification v.2.1, January 2000 (9398-393-40011)' 3 with the transceiver being the slave device and the host being the master." Spec. i-f 162. The Examiner has not found the cited art teaches a "physical interface" that is consistent with the Specification disclosure. Although we must construe the claims in light of the Specification, we recognize, however, that limitations may not be imported into the claims from the Specification. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). During examination, claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation as they would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment may be provided by the Specification. In re Ji;forris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We agree the claims do not recite, nor does the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims require, a specific "physical interface," such as the disclosed I2C-Bus. However, the Specification discloses the "physical interface" comprises an I2C-Bus coupled to the I2C-interfaces of the host processor and the transceiver. Spec., i-f 166. For purposes ofÂ§ 103, the broadest reasonable interpretation of, the claimed "physical interface" need not be limited to an I2C-Bus. Lobbert discloses that a Bluetooth data-link- 3 Available at: http://www.cs.unc.edu/Research/stc/FAQs/Interfaces/I2C- BusSnec-V2. Lpdf, (accessed March 24, 2016). 6 Appeal2014-008392 Application 12/165,468 layer protocol is used by "one peer which acts as a client and one peer acting as a file and/ or application server [to] establish a direct radio link." Lobbert, if 006 (emphasis added). A bus is the "circuitry and wiring connecting the various components of a computer through which data are transmitted." McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Electrical & Computer Engineering, 66 (2003). Alternatively, a "bus" is defined as "[a] set of hardware lines (conductors) used for data transfer among the components of a computer system." Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th Ed., 77 (2002). Where the claims recite a "physical interface," and in the absence of an explicit finding by the Examiner that modifying the teachings of Lobbert to use a physical interface would have been obvious, we do not find that a wireless, radio link reasonably teaches or suggests the wires and conductors that define a data bus. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not found the cited art teaches "a host processor receiving an interrupt from a transceiver via a physical interface coupling the host processor and the transceiver," as claimed. Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established. If the examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, the rejection is improper and will be overturned. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). We accordingly decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1-3 and 7. CLAIMS 12-14, AND 18: OBVIOUSNESS OVER WANG, LOBBERT, AND SULLIVAN Appellants contend that Sullivan also fails to teach the "physical interface" limitation missing from Wang and Lobbert. App. Br. 14. The 7 Appeal2014-008392 Application 12/165,468 Examiner finds the arguments directed to Claim 1 apply to Claim 12. The Examiner does not answer Appellants' traversal of the remaining claims. Ans. 3. In view of our prior discussion, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 12-14 and 18. CLAIMS 4---6, 8-11, 15-17, AND 19-22 Appellants do not separately argue the patentability contending they stand or fall with the independent claim from which they depend. App. Br. 7. Examiner does not answer Appellants' traversal of the remaining claims. Ans. 3. In view of our prior discussion, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 4---6, 8-11, 15-17, and 19-22. DECISION The rejection of Claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 is REVERSED. REVERSED 8